| 词条 | Thompson v Vincent |
| 释义 |
}}{{Infobox court case | name = Thompson v Vincent | court = Court of Appeal of New Zealand | date_filed = |image =Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg |imagesize = 200px | date decided = 21 June 2001 | full name = Thompson v Vincent | citations = [2001] 3 NZLR 355 | judges = McGrath, Ellis and McGechan JJ | prior actions = | subsequent actions = | opinions = | transcripts = | Keywords = }}Thompson v Vincent [2001] 3 NZLR 355 is a cited case in New Zealand confirming that where a party has cancelled a contract on unjustifiable grounds, can legally cancel the contract if justifiable grounds are later discovered.[1] BackgroundThe Thompsons were developing a 22-24 unit motel complex. Prior to construction, the Vincents entered into a sale and purchase agreement for the motel, giving them a 20-year lease for $500,000. Within 2 years of ownership, the Vincents abandoned the motel and their lease. Soon after the abandonment, the Vincents discovered that the vendors only had planning consent for only 12 units, and not 24. They then used this as a basis for a claim for misrepresentation, in an effort to get their money back under the Contractual Remedies Act 1979. HeldThe court awarded them $320,000 in damages for the misrepresentation. References1. ^{{cite book |title=An introduction to the Law of Contract in New Zealand |edition=4th |last1=Chetwin |first1=Maree |last2=Graw |first2=Stephen |last3=Tiong |first3=Raymond |publisher=Thomson Brookers |ISBN=0-86472-555-8 |year=2006 |pages=404–405}} 2 : New Zealand contract case law|Court of Appeal of New Zealand cases |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。